25 Years Ago-NO GOAL

[frisco]

June 19 is the 25th anniversary of the Brett Hull "NO GOAL" that ended the 1999 season. Was it the most impactful, "worst" sports call of all-time? I'm thinking yes:

1) The moment. Triple OT, Game Six, Stanley Cup Finals. That is about as big as it gets.

2) The finality. See #1. It seems the most egregious bad calls in sports at least had some chance for the offended team to bounce back and overcome. The offside in the Islanders-Flyers Game Six 1980 Finals was in the earlier periods and the Flyers had ample chance to overcome. Ditto Don Denkinger in the 1985 World Series who would be forgotten had the Cardinals just gotten a few more outs. Plus, they had another kick at the can in a Game Seven. Saints non-pass interference against the Rams (2018)--again forgotten had New Orleans closed out the game properly.

But the Hull "goal" ended the game and the series. There was no change for redemption or recourse. That's the harshest of realities.

3) Real time/replay. Sports is played fast. Officials have to make calls in literal split seconds with players and pucks/balls moving at all kinds of speeds with fractions of inches between a good/bad call. The human element means things are missed every game. In 1999, The on-ice officials did not catch the Hull foot in the crease. That's human error but forgivable.

However, this was a reviewable play. It was not reviewed. There was no announcement for play/goal under review. The replay officials theoretically had all the time they wanted/needed to get the call right. They did not. That is an administrative error of the highest degree.

My Best-Carey

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

Because I'm not particularly a Sabres' fan, I tend to look at it like this:

Was it a missed call by the standards of that time by the officials? Probably, yes.

Is this a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Not really, because for 95% of NHL history (including today) it was a perfectly good goal.

However, I do sympathize with Sabres' fans because in that time, in that situation, in that way... it's tough.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It was a terrible call, and a clear violation of the rules that were in effect at that time. I can't imagine the meltdown that would have happened on HFBoards (plus Twitter, Reddit, etc) had this happened during the age of social media.

On the other hand - the "skate in the crease" rule was a bad one. In theory it was designed to protect goalies, which is commendable, but the way it was implemented made no sense. In situations like this (where the goalie's safety - or ability to save the puck) clearly wasn't affected, it stifled offense without any apparent benefit.

Even if the call was overturned, it's unlikely that the Sabres would have won the Cup. They'd still need to win game 6, and then they'd need to beat the Stars (a much stronger, deeper team) on the road. My (very) rough calculation suggests the Stars would have had around an 80% chance of winning the Cup. Still, even if it would have been an uphill battle, I feel bad for the Sabres (and their fans) for not getting the chance.

(EDIT - I agree with @frisco comment. The officials not catching the skate in the crease in real time is perfectly understandable. The play not being properly reviewed was the problem).

 

[blogofmike]

Nah. It was a good goal.

 

[Staniowski]

It's not completely comparable, but the Hand of God is the most famous missed call ever in sports. The most famous player in the world at the time. It was the Quarter Finals, and it wasn't the deciding goal, but it was big.

Touching the ball with your hand is the most fundamental no-no in the sport.

 

[MadLuke]

It was a terrible call, and a clear violation of the rules that were in effect at that time. I can't imagine the meltdown that would have happened on HFBoards (plus Twitter, Reddit, etc) had this happened during the age of social media.

Or people would have brought the argument of why it was a good goal:

"Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed."

Hull was not standing in the goal crease and the puck clearly enter the zone before Hull skate, he never loose possession (it would have been hockey to hit him at any point of the play by a D without any chance of an interference call), is not a crazy argument to make. But the rules has written does not talk about possession, only the physical puck and make a rebound kicking the puck out of the crease possibly voiding that goal.

It is a bit crazy now and need to mentally put yourself back in that season where that goal would have often been reversed, hard enough to make it hard to talk about it, it was a fully legitimate issue for Buffalo, but such a strange one.

 

[MadLuke]

As for any prediction for what happen next, the amount of letting go after all this of having won it all on the Dallas Star could be hard to overrate.

You need to go back to play in a third overtime after having thrown your glove in the air, stick on the ice, etc...

Obviously, some let go happen in the Sabres players has well, but the transition from having lost to getting a chance again seem much easier than the other way around.

 

[frisco]

A couple more points:

1) As @Hockey Outsider alluded to, can you imagine if this situation happens on Friday in Edmonton. Triple OT and Matthew Tkachuk scores an illegal goal which ends the season? It would be absolute pandemonium. I do agree it cost the Sabres a 20-25% chance at the Cup, which is about where the betting line is on Edmonton currently to win the series in 2024.

2) Bryan Lewis was a career NHL official. Worked 1000+ games and something like nine Finals. Moved his way into the highest and most prestigious position in the league as Director Of Officiating in his 11th season in the role at the age of 57. Six months after the incident, Lewis was out of the league, never to return with barely a press note on his departure.

Now that sounds to me like someone was (rightly) blamed and fired for his inaction that night. He was the replay official and had full responsibility and control of the situation.

3) It was a bad rule, of course. But it was the rule at the time. And before anyone talks about possession and all that post hoc explanation (including the infamous memo that no one received), where in the rulebook can a player direct or shoot the puck at the net AND still maintain possession? It defies logic. A player takes a slapshot from 45 feet away and the goalie saves it and bounces back to him. That's considered uninterrupted continuous possession? Same thing with Hull but from closer in. As soon as there is a shot the puck is released from the player's control. Simple as that.

Worst call in sports history.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

3) It was a bad rule, of course. But it was the rule at the time. And before anyone talks about possession and all that post hoc explanation (including the infamous memo that no one received), where in the rulebook can a player direct or shoot the puck at the net AND still maintain possession? I

At any point of that play would an official call interference on a Sabres players doing something to Hull ? (well maybe that more saying something about the interference rules) but puck possession in hockey is quite fuzzy.

The rulesbook (https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24Rulebook.pdf) say:

Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check isrendered immediately following his loss of possession.

Under that definition, Hull was clearly all the time in possession of the puck (and you could have hit him to stop him to score at any time legally).

The thing is the phrasing of the skate crease was not explicit about being in possession of the puck like the offside rules (but the offside rules being so common and well known maybe it was implicit in the mind of the writer)

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is one of the most overblown things in hockey history. Brian Holzinger is more to blame than the officials probably...

Having your skate in the crease wasn't exactly penalized by having your foot immediately amputated. A player could bring the puck into the crease and be with it...



Anson Carter skates into the crease with the puck and scores. No big deal... (hell, go back in that same video and look at Ray Bourque's goal)

The play was reviewed and it was a (good) goal.

 

[tabness]

Will always have a soft spot for the late nineties Star as they dispatched the Avs after the Avs rolled the Wings in 1999 and 2000, and to see one of the all time coolest players ever (probably the coolest) the great Brett Hull score the goal is just amazing.

The NHL is bushleague in many ways, and obviously this foot in crease rule sucked and caused a bunch of confusion and all, but this is hardly an egregious missed call. It's just remembered a lot by a fanbase just as the Calgary parallax puck thing was a few years later, understandably so.

Yes if the internet was what it was today and HF was what it was today (or more aptly like 15ish years ago) this would blow up, but like we have things like Trouba threads roll on after the Rangers are eliminated and Makar was offside that seemingly kept going after the cup was won in 2022, we will find anything to bicker over lol

 

[buffalowing88]

That was an unpleasant experience for 10-year-old me. Even at the time, though, I thought we were dead in the water. Looking back, the Stars felt inevitable at that point and if we pull it off at home for Game 6, it would be tough to repeat the effort in Game 7, the team just could not keep up with the depth of scoring Dallas had.

It's a stupid rule and it should have been called and it's a snake move by Bettman to demand that they stop reviewing it since the celebration had already begun. With all that said, it's a goal in almost every other season so I don't let it bother me too much.

 

[MadLuke]

It's not completely comparable, but the Hand of God is the most famous missed call ever in sports. The most famous player in the world at the time. It was the Quarter Finals, and it wasn't the deciding goal, but it was big.

Touching the ball with your hand is the most fundamental no-no in the sport.

It is worldwide probably the big one (with the Alain Côté goal...), but the big difference it was in a sport with zero review process and would not have it for a very long time and for which fuzzy human limited referee is a big part of the culture and appeal, that played closer to what amateur would do or pro a century ago. They do not even have a stop clock for time and what not.

Hockey, specially that year was the opposite and obsessed with exactitude, with video review used to add 2 second or remove 2 second to the game clock, reviewed like half the scored goals when anyone was anywhere close to the crease, would care about the blade being half a inch past or pre the line, try to look if the puck passed really all over the line or some 1/8 inch was still over it for 2 minutes in half from 3 angles...

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Imo it was a bit overblown. Like other posters have stated the Sabres would have still needed to win Game 6 and then go back to Dallas for a Game 7 vs a team that was in do or die mode that year imo both highly unlikely. As angry as Buffalo fans were that team played 3 pretty unspectacular teams on thier way to the finals because well let's face it the east was pretty unspectacular at the time. If I were a Sabres fan 06 and 07 would have pissed me off more as both those teams would have won the cup had they gotten to the finals.

 

[MadLuke]

Imo it was a bit overblown. Like other posters have stated the Sabres would have still needed to win Game 6 and then go back to Dallas for a Game 7 vs a team that was in do or die mode that year imo both highly unlikely.

It depends on when do the referee stop the celebration and ask them to wait for the review result, if the team leaved the bench and have to start to pick up the glove and stick all around the ice to get back into the game, that mental exhaustion of having let go after a third period of OT of a game 6.

To get back to win the cup a second time... feel like it would be way more likely now for the sabres, after Dallas won the cup and need to win it again than before or if the goal is cancelled right away.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

The Hand of God and the pass interference are the two worst calls of all time. The former I can maybe excuse because the ref blinked. The latter was mind boggling and I am no saints fan

 

[Mallow]

I can empathize with Sabres fans because I have always felt like the foot-in-crease was dumb. As a kid I watched that rule affect two NCAA national championship games of the Maine Black Bears.

In the 1999 title game, Dan Kerluke scored at the 6:43 mark of the 2nd to make it 3-0 Maine, but that goal was overturned because Jason Vitorino skated through the crease. That no-goal changed the momentum and UNH came back to tie, but Maine won 3-2 in OT.

In the 2004 title game, Derek Damon scored at the 14:55 mark of the 1st to give Maine a 1-0 lead, but the goal was erased because Mike Hamilton's skate was in the crease. Denver ended up surviving a wild final 90 seconds where Maine had a 6x3 advantage and won 1-0.

Thank god they got rid of that rule.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

The NHL can't help but kick itself in the genetalia by establishing, inconsistently calling/enforcing, and eventually abandoning ridiculous and confusing rules such as this. I suspect in ~20 years time we'll look back on the current period and rules such as offside reviews and feel the same way as we do now about the skate in the crease rule.

Regardless, despite the non-call, if it even were one, I felt like Dallas was the best team in the NHL in 1999 and deserving Cup champs. And I've always been a big fan of Brett Hull.

 

[MadLuke]

In this situation too, if the NHL had reversed the call after the celebration started and giant proportion of fans closed their TV (it was 1:30 am), do they shoot themselve more or less in the foot, does it make them look more bush league or less.

I would say way more to both (specially with the nature of the call being reversed).

 

[starsfan86]

“A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post or an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession, and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession or control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck."

"Hull had possession and control of the puck. The rebound off the goalie does not change anything. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a foot may or may not be in the crease prior to."

 

[Crosby2010]

This was not a good time for the NHL. Let's not forget how horrendous this rule was. And let's also not forget that the NHL had plenty of time to reverse this rule long before 1999. It was in place for three years but it really didn't get pronounced until the 1997 playoffs. I can remember Gretzky - after a win - saying that he thinks the NHL should look into it again because it had cost his opponent a goal, which was the Devils. Nope. Nothing changes. A monkey could see that this rule didn't make sense. Too much pride in the NHL execs and the horrible combination of Brian Burke and Bettman calling the shots showed its true colours. Move onto 1998, I can vividly remember a goal being called back when it was an empty net goal. I am not kidding. Then the playoffs in 1998 Boston probably loses a playoff series over it as they had an overtime called back because Tim Taylor's toe was in the crease and had no bearing on the play. Nope, NHL keeps it in. Really? I mean, really? So the idea was that one of these days this rule is going to catch up to the NHL and it will be in double overtime of the Cup final. And you know what, it did happen. Except it was triple overtime. But it doesn't matter. Dallas was better, this was a good goal, and we should forget that the NHL even pushed this rule on us. That Cup belongs to Dallas and if you strap a Sabres fan to a polygraph he knows it was a good goal too. It was a hockey goal. It was the NHL's fault for making it a circus.

I can remember Sabres coach Lindy Ruff saying he confronted Bettman after the game and he said Bettman just literally walked away from him. There are bad calls in sports. Don Denkinger for example has admitted he made a mistake in 1985. Cardinals still could have won the game, but yeah that one stings! I agree that this one ended the entire season and there was no second chance for Buffalo. In 2004 with the "no goal" thing with Gelinas and Khabibulin my thought is that this was still not a goal, and the aerial view showed this. But it mistakenly is talked about as if the Flames win the Cup if that goal goes in. It was Game 6, they were up 3-2 in the series and this would have put them up a goal in the third period. However, they don't automatically win if this counts. But this one in 1999, it ended everything and it was ugly and I am glad over time people take the Stars' Cup in 1999 as legit as any other year.

 

[frisco]

“A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post or an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession, and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession or control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck."

"Hull had possession and control of the puck. The rebound off the goalie does not change anything. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a foot may or may not be in the crease prior to."

Believing that is like believing hostages held at gunpoint who read the messages that their captors make them read on camera.

A weak, made up explanation thrown together after the fact. CYA.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

A few more comments:

1) Not Brett Hull's fault. What's he gonna do. Take back the goal?

2) The whole thought process of it was a good goal normally without the stupid rule doesn't really mean much. The rule AT THE TIME is all that matters.

3) Dallas was still favorites to win the Cup even had the call been called back. True and Dallas may have been the better team but that's like saying let's hand Florida the Cup right now because it's likely they win it anyway in the end. Anyway, if Dallas was that superior to the Sabres why were they fighting for their lives in triple OT of Game Six?

My Best-Carey

 

[Gorskyontario]

The curse of the sabres.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

It is worldwide probably the big one (with the Alain Côté goal...), but the big difference it was in a sport with zero review process and would not have it for a very long time and for which fuzzy human limited referee is a big part of the culture and appeal, that played closer to what amateur would do or pro a century ago. They do not even have a stop clock for time and what not.

Hockey, specially that year was the opposite and obsessed with exactitude, with video review used to add 2 second or remove 2 second to the game clock, reviewed like half the scored goals when anyone was anywhere close to the crease, would care about the blade being half a inch past or pre the line, try to look if the puck passed really all over the line or some 1/8 inch was still over it for 2 minutes in half from 3 angles...

In case anyone is interested, soccer now has VAR review for situations like that.

The official wears an earpiece which relays the signal to stop play from the equivalent review room. They actually have a TV on a boom at the sidelines of an english premier league game that the official runs over to and watches a replay to review his decision. The time spent with the play stopped like this is added on as extra time for that half.

(I work in soccer data entry right now, so its kind of my job)

It depends on when do the referee stop the celebration and ask them to wait for the review result, if the team leaved the bench and have to start to pick up the glove and stick all around the ice to get back into the game, that mental exhaustion of having let go after a third period of OT of a game 6.

To get back to win the cup a second time... feel like it would be way more likely now for the sabres, after Dallas won the cup and need to win it again than before or if the goal is cancelled right away.

Makes you wonder what will happen the next time theres an overtime finals winner for the NHL, theyve been lucky since 99 in that all 3 of the OT winners since have been pretty straightforward, nothing to argue about with the Arnott and Martinez winners, and the Kane winner only took a minute because they couldnt believe Leighton let it in from that angle.

Exactly what you described with the sticks and gloves being thrown can still happen, followed by a review overturning it. Not a good situation.